View Full Version : Brain in vat and other philosophical discussion
StarsOfCCTV
22-05-2008, 17:10
Moved it here because it's so off topic from how was your day :p
Our brain is real...:p
Okay but how are we being manipuated if the scientist doesnt exist, are we choosing to be manipulated
No the scientist is real :p
But I thought you said he wasnt?
StarsOfCCTV
22-05-2008, 17:13
No I didn't....did I? :lol:
But you could also be hallucinating or dreaming if you aren't being controlled by the evil scientist :p
We are real, just not a body. E.g. You could be the only other person apart form the scientist to exist but you don't know it because you are being manipulated. The scientist does exist.
Sorry I mis-read, you said he does exist.
So is he like a magicain then?
But you could also be hallucinating or dreaming if you aren't being controlled by the evil scientist :p
So life is just one big hallucination?
Where are our brains kept?
And who the hell thought up this concept?
StarsOfCCTV
22-05-2008, 17:19
Not really. He's cleverer than that. He's a proper scientist. He just controls you. SoapBoards might not exist - he's just making you think that it does :lol:
So what makes him exist, and what happens when we die in this concept?
StarsOfCCTV
22-05-2008, 17:22
But you could also be hallucinating or dreaming if you aren't being controlled by the evil scientist :p
So life is just one big hallucination?
Where are our brains kept?
And who the hell thought up this concept?
1. Could be
2. In Philosophy headquarters (I don't know :lol:)
3. Descartes thought of the evil demon, not sure about hallucination
StarsOfCCTV
22-05-2008, 17:22
So what makes him exist, and what happens when we die in this concept?
I don't know :o :lol: Descartes doesn't explain that far :p
So Im intrigued, the scientist wants you to learn about him, even though he is manipulating us, sounds odd doesnt it? :p
Is there just one evil scientist controlling everybody in the world? Who controls the scientist?
What else do you learn in Philosophy? :p
StarsOfCCTV
22-05-2008, 17:30
So Im intrigued, the scientist wants you to learn about him, even though he is manipulating us, sounds odd doesnt it? :p
No no he doesn't want to make you learn about him he just wants to manipulate you :p Don't ask me why, he's just crazy :lol:
Is there just one evil scientist controlling everybody in the world? Who controls the scientist? No idea :lol:
But hes manipulating you into an illusion of you learning about him, so could that be make-blieve also to trick us and maybe he isnt real afterall :p
StarsOfCCTV
22-05-2008, 17:32
What else do you learn in Philosophy? :p
Teleological argument, ontological argument, cosmolical argument for the existence of God.
Problem of evil.
Miracles and religious experiences.
Form of the Good.
Innate ideas - is your mind a blank slate when you were born or do are you already born with knowledge?
Realism, idealism, common-sense realism, causal realism..
and so...much more :lol:
StarsOfCCTV
22-05-2008, 17:34
But hes manipulating you into an illusion of you learning about him, so could that be make-blieve also to trick us and maybe he isnt real afterall :p
No you aren't learning about him :lol: he's tricking you to think you are living your life. Your being controlled by him :p
But hes manipulating you into an illusion of you learning about him, so could that be make-blieve also to trick us and maybe he isnt real afterall :p
No you aren't learning about him :lol: he's tricking you to think you are living your life. Your being controlled by him :p
Abbie is definitely being controlled by him :rotfl:
It makes no sense, we are learning and talking about him though!!!!
StarsOfCCTV
22-05-2008, 17:49
You have arrived at the world of Philosophy. Make yourself at home. You will now be eternally confused. :rotfl:
So he does exist, but you do understand my reasoning into why it makes it sound like he doesnt?
Kirsty :]
22-05-2008, 21:57
I control the scientist :D Mwhahaa
Sorry just having a moment then!
It all sounds really... brainy!!
What else do you learn in Philosophy? :p
Teleological argument, ontological argument, cosmolical argument for the existence of God.
Oh no not Teleological!!
Gahh all this reminds me slightly of Ethics in RE :hmm:
What is Teleological argument?
What is Teleological argument?
teleological argument (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleological_argument), or argument from design, is an argument for the existence of God or a creator based on perceived evidence of order, purpose, design, or direction—or some combination of these—in nature.
Oh I did that RE, just never knew it was called that. I never really got that, I always wanted to know who created God then :p?
Oh I did that RE, just never knew it was called that. I never really got that, I always wanted to know who created God then :p?
Who do you think created god? :hmm:
Got know idea but whoever did, then who created the guy who created god and so on and so on and so on and so on.....
So do you believe that god created man and everything besides?
oooo a discussio :p I like it
erm i not really sure if I believe in god, I used it just sit and stare whilst I thought how we got here and its just too a big of concept to grasp I mean the big bang theory okay so where id the particles come from and then where did those before come from, its another so on and so on and so on things....
I just cant get my head round to think what I really believe in
I mean the big bang theory okay so where id the particles come from and then where did those before come from, its another so on and so on and so on things....
The big bang came from a Singularity. It had more matter than antimatter which allowed the universe to form. If it had equal amounts of matter and antimatter they would annihilate each other and nothing would be.
How that Singularity came to explode or how it even came into being is a mystery. I don't think it will be explained in our lifetime.
I'll always stand on the side of science over religion. Religion proves nothing other than people are willing to believe something that was said thousands of years ago. The other problem with religion is the accuracy of texts. For thousands of years people copied bibles or scripts by hand. Its inevitable that mistakes were made along the way and possible that what people believe now isn't what what said all those years ago.
Thats what I think, I respect those who do truly have a religion and have their faith, but in many respects its like Chinese whispers the way things are passed now- I also think that about history itself really.
But the science is too hard to grasp in how anything got here, there must of been something, but how that something got there to create it, seems impossible to even answer
I think everybody is entitled to believe what they wish but I agree totally about Chinese whispers.
If god does exist, who created him? And did each higher being (God, Allah etc) create something of their own? Do they conflict with each other?
But doesnt each religion only believe in one God?
Another thing that I dont understand, never have, is the timeline of events, like the creation of adam and eve, but when did dinasaurs come into it? And when was the first man ever really here
.:SpIcYsPy:.
22-05-2008, 23:01
My head hurts just reading this thread, how confusing!
StarsOfCCTV
22-05-2008, 23:01
So he does exist, but you do understand my reasoning into why it makes it sound like he doesnt?
Yeah I do, but in the exam I wouldn't mention that because it isn't a factor of the argument i wouldn't get any marks for that - although it is a good point :p
So do you believe that god created man and everything besides?
The creating of the world - there could have been different Gods/many Gods/ a lesser God/God who died after making it and let the Earth run it's own course.
Evolution and the problem of evil are two massive problems to the God of classical theism (religious image of God).
That's why there is fedism - blind faith. Reason contradicts faith. You can't try and reason that there is a God, like in the Ontological argument (if you are rational and you can think of the concept of God he exists) - it just doesn't work. You just have to have faith...basically. :p
But doesnt each religion only believe in one God?
Another thing that I dont understand, never have, is the timeline of events, like the creation of adam and eve, but when did dinasaurs come into it? And when was the first man ever really here
Each religion does only believe in one god. I'm not sure what Christians think of the Muslim or Jewish higher being and vice versa.
I have a friend who is a Christian and she thinks dinosaurs are a figment of scientists' imaginations! Sod all those bones and skeletons in the Natural History Museum, they must have been man made :rolleyes:
Adam and Eve is what Christians believe. Dinosaurs are a scientific discovery.
StarsOfCCTV
22-05-2008, 23:04
But doesnt each religion only believe in one God?
Another thing that I dont understand, never have, is the timeline of events, like the creation of adam and eve, but when did dinasaurs come into it? And when was the first man ever really here
Each religion does only believe in one god. I'm not sure what Christians think of the Muslim or Jewish higher being and vice versa.
I have a friend who is a Christian and she thinks dinosaurs are a figment of scientists' imaginations! Sod all those bones and skeletons in the Natural History Museum, they must have been man made :rolleyes:
Adam and Eve is what Christians believe. Dinosaurs are a scientific discovery.
Do you know Anselm said that we deserve evil in the world because it is seminally present in Adam. And that God is merciful and just for letting some people survive - like in earthquakes and miracles. :eek: :thumbsdow
My friend is Christian but she accepts the dinasour thing. You can't really deny it. Your friend is experiencing blind faith. :lol:
Thats what confuses me, we have proof of what did exist and how we evolved, but how did the animals get here in the first place
And Kasple what is the Ontological argument?
My friend is Christian but she accepts the dinasour thing. You can't really deny it. Your friend is experiencing blind faith. :lol:
I think she's a Fundamentalist but she's not admitting it. I don't see her that often or talk to her, she usually comes out with some religious bull (in my opinion) that makes no sense and has been disproved by science.
StarsOfCCTV
22-05-2008, 23:14
Thats what confuses me, we have proof of what did exist and how we evolved, but how did the animals get here in the first place
And Kasple what is the Ontological argument?
GOD! :lol: No idea. Leave it to the scientists. :p
From my notes: This would be a part C answer (24 marks)
Ontological argument:
If we understand the concept and are rational then we must believe God exists.
Argument 1 For
Anselm – our idea of God must be of the greatest possible being otherwise he wouldn't be the greatest being. Can think of greatest possible being. The greatest possible being – a being that exists – God.
Response 1
Guanilo's response – Perfect island - If it doesn't exist it would not be perfect – so the perfect island exists. Concept of unicorn – just because you have concept doesn't mean it exists.
Response 2
Anselm's response – God is a necessary being – God has the property of necessary existence – only God. Island does not have the property of necessary existence.
Argument 2 For
Descartes key points – Existence is a perfection. God has all perfections. Therefore God exists.
Descartes– Idea of valley, idea of mountain. But valleys and mountains do not have necessary existence. God and existence, can't separate idea. Can't imagine God not existing. So God exists. Once we accept existence is a perfection and God has all perfections, we must think he exists.
Criticisms
Kant's criticisms:
1. 'Existence is not a predicate. To say something exists gives us no new information.
2. 'God exists' cannot be a necessary truth. Must be subject, must be predicate. Necessary truth – predicate contained in the subject.
3. It is an empirical observation – cannot be known a priori. To know something exists we must know it empirically – through the senses.
Conclusion
The Ontological argument doesn't work because 'existence' is not a predicate. To say something exists tells us nothing about the subject. God cannot be known just through a priori – through reason.
Okaaaaayy then...
This sounds interesting but is hard to get my head around. I have no idea how you remember all this stuf. Makes you sound really intelligent though (not that you're not, I'm just saying that well reasoned arguments make people look really clever).
StarsOfCCTV
22-05-2008, 23:19
Okaaaaayy then...
This sounds interesting but is hard to get my head around. I have no idea how you remember all this stuf. Makes you sound really intelligent though (not that you're not, I'm just saying that well reasoned arguments make people look really clever).
That's just my notes summarised :p And I don't remember all this stuff :lol: I can grasp the basic stuff but can't really expand it. Probably waffle on for half the exam hope I get something relevant in there. :lol:
You see I always end up asking the question so where did God come from.
And we can imagine God not exisitng cos we are trying to understand where we really come from
This is really hard to get your head round
StarsOfCCTV
22-05-2008, 23:22
God didn't come from anything. He is timeless and eternal. He exists outside time and existed before the laws of logic...:ninja:
Oh another thing religious people have to know the negation of what they are saying. e.g. the chair is blue - the chair is not blue (negation). If a christian can't accept what would count against their claim - e.g. God doesn't exist being the negation of God exists - then they have a false belief. They aren't really saying anything.
See, this is why I'll choose science over religion any day :lol:
There's no point me studying philosophy at uni, I'll keep arguing for science. Tis interesting though :D
But he has to have come from somewhere!
And what the hell are you on about- blue chairs?
the chair is blue - the chair is not blue (negation). If a christian can't accept what would count against their claim - e.g. God doesn't exist being the negation of God exists - then they have a false belief. They aren't really saying anything.
And what the hell are you on about- blue chairs?
You can say a chair is blue when its not. A Christian can say god exists when he doesn't. If you believe the chair is blue then you have a false belief. Or you're colour blind.
Okay that is crazy, you can clearly see the evidence that a chair is blue as the colour blue is reflected
StarsOfCCTV
22-05-2008, 23:35
I never said Philosophy wasn't crazy and irrational :lol:
Sorry love this thread. I just like debating and discussing
Realism, idealism, common-sense realism, causal realism..
Can you explain what these are?
StarsOfCCTV
23-05-2008, 21:44
Lol its ok :p
Brief summary of each :D
Realism
Can't find my notes on it :lol:
Common-sense realism
View held by most people that haven't studied Philosophy. It assumes that there is a world of physical objects - trees, cars, goldfish etc - which we can learn about through our 5 senses. These physical objects continue to exist whether or not we are perceiving them. What is more, these objects are more or less as they appear to us, goldfish really are orange etc. This is because our organs of sense perception - eyes, ears, tongue, skin and nose - are generally reliable. They give us a realist perception of what is out there.
Problems
- Scepticism about certainty of the senses - dreaming argument, hallucination argument, argument from illusion (misperception, error), brain in vat.
Idealism
There is no justification for saying that the external world exists at all. Physical objects - a skyscraper, my desk, other people only exist while they are being perceived. We are all locked in individual cinemas watching films, but there is no real world outside the cinemas. We cannot leave because there is nothing outside. The films are our only reality. When no one is watching the screen, the projector light is switched off but the film keeps on running through the projector. Whenever I look at the screen, the light comes on again and the film is at precisely the same place it would have been had it been projected all along.
Problems: hallucinations and dreams. - how can we know what they are if we only have internal ideas. Leads to solipsism - no physical objects means there is no other people. Everything is a creation of my own mind.
Causal Realism
The causes of our sense experience are physical objects in the external world. The main biological function of our sense if to help us find our way around our environment. It is through our senses that we acquire beliefs about our environment. According to causal realism, when I see my guitar what actually happens is that light rays reflected from the guitar cause certain effects on my retina and on other areas of my brain. This leads to me acquiring certain beliefs about what I am seeing. The experience of acquiring the beliefs is the experience of seeing my guitar. The route is important - If I was hallucinating then I wouldn't really be seeing my guitar. The drugs would be the cause of my belief. Seeing is a matter of acquiring information about my surroundings. Assumes that there really is an external world that continues to exist, whether or not we are perceiving it. Also assumes that beliefs from senses are generally true, that is why we developed them in natural selection.
Problems - assumes there is a real world. Doesn't take adequate account of what it is actually like to see something - the qualititave aspect of sight. It reduces the experience of perceiving to a form of information gathering.
Causal realism is the best type because it can easily explain the fact that our existing knowledge affects what we perceive. In acquiring information our system of classification, and our knowledge, directly affect how how we treat incoming information on what we select and interpret as relevant.
Lol its ok :p
Brief summary of each :D
Realism
Can't find my notes on it :lol:
Common-sense realism
View held by most people that haven't studied Philosophy. It assumes that there is a world of physical objects - trees, cars, goldfish etc - which we can learn about through our 5 senses. These physical objects continue to exist whether or not we are perceiving them. What is more, these objects are more or less as they appear to us, goldfish really are orange etc. This is because our organs of sense perception - eyes, ears, tongue, skin and nose - are generally reliable. They give us a realist perception of what is out there.
Problems
- Scepticism about certainty of the senses - dreaming argument, hallucination argument, argument from illusion (misperception, error), brain in vat.
Idealism
There is no justification for saying that the external world exists at all. Physical objects - a skyscraper, my desk, other people only exist while they are being perceived. We are all locked in individual cinemas watching films, but there is no real world outside the cinemas. We cannot leave because there is nothing outside. The films are our only reality. When no one is watching the screen, the projector light is switched off but the film keeps on running through the projector. Whenever I look at the screen, the light comes on again and the film is at precisely the same place it would have been had it been projected all along.
Problems: hallucinations and dreams. - how can we know what they are if we only have internal ideas. Leads to solipsism - no physical objects means there is no other people. Everything is a creation of my own mind.
Causal Realism
The causes of our sense experience are physical objects in the external world. The main biological function of our sense if to help us find our way around our environment. It is through our senses that we acquire beliefs about our environment. According to causal realism, when I see my guitar what actually happens is that light rays reflected from the guitar cause certain effects on my retina and on other areas of my brain. This leads to me acquiring certain beliefs about what I am seeing. The experience of acquiring the beliefs is the experience of seeing my guitar. The route is important - If I was hallucinating then I wouldn't really be seeing my guitar. The drugs would be the cause of my belief. Seeing is a matter of acquiring information about my surroundings. Assumes that there really is an external world that continues to exist, whether or not we are perceiving it. Also assumes that beliefs from senses are generally true, that is why we developed them in natural selection.
Problems - assumes there is a real world. Doesn't take adequate account of what it is actually like to see something - the qualititave aspect of sight. It reduces the experience of perceiving to a form of information gathering.
Causal realism is the best type because it can easily explain the fact that our existing knowledge affects what we perceive. In acquiring information our system of classification, and our knowledge, directly affect how how we treat incoming information on what we select and interpret as relevant.
Wow, my OH would love to chat to you, he is into philosophy big time. How would you response to : You light a candle, the flame is burning. If you put a piece of cardboard in front of the candle so you can't see it, is it still burning? My answer to this is: hold the cardboard nearer the candle, if it starts burning, the candle really is still burning. (I am naughty, I know).
Yeah I think Casual Realism makes more sense and common sense one does as well but Casual makes things sound more normal :D
You light a candle, the flame is burning. If you put a piece of cardboard in front of the candle so you can't see it, is it still burning?
Or if a tree falls in a forest and nobody is there, does the tree still make a sound when it falls?
You light a candle, the flame is burning. If you put a piece of cardboard in front of the candle so you can't see it, is it still burning?
Or if a tree falls in a forest and nobody is there, does the tree still make a sound when it falls?
My friend told me about this one months ago and it had be so confused, cos like sound needs to be vibrated through the air and waves and all that so if no one is there :eek: does it make a sound
StarsOfCCTV
24-05-2008, 01:25
You light a candle, the flame is burning. If you put a piece of cardboard in front of the candle so you can't see it, is it still burning?
Or if a tree falls in a forest and nobody is there, does the tree still make a sound when it falls?
If you believe in idealism, then no. If you believe in Common-sense realism, then yes. :p
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.